Charles Simonson v. Borough of Taylor, Pennsylvania, et al.

The Third Circuit held that probable cause can be based solely on the statements of a victim and an alleged 1 ½ hour investigation that failed to include interviewing any witnesses. Simonson v. Borough of Taylor, 839 Fed. Appx. 735, 736 (3d Cir. 2020). In contrast, the Ninth and Seventh Circuits require more evidence than just a victim’s statement to find probable cause to make an arrest. “In establishing probable cause, officers may not solely rely on the claim of a citizen witness that he was a victim of a crime, but must independently investigate the basis of the witness' knowledge or interview other witnesses.” Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). Similarly, the Seventh Circuit requires “[a] police officer may not close her or his eyes to facts that would help clarify the circumstances of an arrest. Reasonable avenues of investigation must be pursued especially when, as here, it is unclear whether a crime had even taken place.” BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123, 128 (7th Cir. 1986). Whether the court of appeals erred when it did not require independent corroboration of an estranged-divorcing wife’s allegations that her husband attempted to kill her before making a warrantless, nonjudicial approved arrest when the allegations were five (5) days old?